Game of Thrones - if you think this has a happy ending then ur prob right

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. Register yourself as a member of Eyes on Final Fantasy in order to post, have less ads, be able to read more thread replies per page, and much much more. Click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I'm sorry, no matter what bad trout happened to her, she will never have an excuse to attack the innocent people of King's Landing. Cersei? Yes. Cersei's armies? Yes, until they, you know...surrendered? But just a trout ton of people who literally had nothing to do with anything? No, smurf that.

Non-constitutional monarchies are bad, and it shouldn't really be a surprise that anyone who wants to be a dictator turns out to be mad or evil. That being said, Dany's plot-line was clearly a bit rushed.

Non-constitutional monarchies are bad, and it shouldn't really be a surprise that anyone who wants to be a dictator turns out to be mad or evil. That being said, Dany's plot-line was clearly a bit rushed.

That's my two cents.

Basically this, but I do see some people (around the web-o-sphere) saying "With all she's been through, do you blame her?" Well, yes. Yes I do. There's snapping, then there's massacring innocent people.

Oh, for sure. Her actions cannot be justified. Her motivation for doing it and the timing of it, however, very much could have been better handled. Instead, she's just replaced Cersei as the final boss, instead of being the tragic downfall of a layered character. If somehow the final episode is all about the internal workings of her choices, then okay, maybe we can re-evaluate everything, but I kind of feel like it'll be a lot of her looking strong, regal and ruthless while the rest of the characters plot her downfall only for some last minute thing to kill her in the end.

Well, we know sam's "get rekt kc" rep is totally appropriate commentary when she herself changes her opinion based on whatever freefolk decides is the ongoing narrative. So thanks for that Sam, your opinion, that is just what you read on the sub full of angry neckbeards, is so well spoken and nuanced. Your completely independent commentary is really such a nice thing to have around here.

I'm not saying her burning people was a GOOD thing. It's just not some crazy out of left field thing when she's literally been saying she'd do it for ages. She failed at diplomacy in Meereen and only "succeeded" when she burninated everything. Yes, it could have used more fleshing out but no, it's not out of nowhere. Just cause the people were bad people before doesn't mean her use of violence and force wasn't still an issue over using diplomacy.

This is her Nuke.

Japan was pretty much rendered useless by the US before we dropped the Nukes. We could have waited it out, fought a few more battles, taken it all by ground/sky force until they gave up OR we dropped nukes. We dropped them and they went "HOLY smurf okay" and then everyone else went "HOLY CRAP okay". Those cities were also full of innocents as well. That's what dany just did. It set it up that no one was going to love her. Everyone was going to betray her and there was Jon who now has a more legitimate claim. So, drop the nuke so no one questions her right because, well a nuke. These people weren't going to rise up and join her like the slaves did. So, nuke em.

I mean, just cause you don't like that she did it. Because it is horrendous. Doesn't mean it was just out of nowhere. And if you think it is, i'm wondering if we're even watching the same show with how people missed all the red flags.

Maybe in a twist one of Hot Pie's hot pies will be undercooked and Dany will die of a stomach issue?

The red flags were there for sure but the timing doesn't bare it out. Even in the commentary about the episode, the creators say Dany just made the decision when she saw the Red Keep, which again, why NOW and not when her other dragon or her best friend were killed? And why not attack the Red Keep FIRST? That's my real issue, as it again takes away the layers and just makes her capital E evil.

I've never said it was out of nowhere. Mad Queen Dany has been hinted at since s1 when she dead eyed and snarked while her brother burned to death. My issue is more with people who think what she did was justified, and I've seen that a lot. I do think that her turn from hints of madness to full on bat trout was kind of rapid, though.

If anything, the hill I'm going to die on is that what they did to Jaime was inexcusable. He already had his Cersei relapse in s7. The whole "he's a Cersei addict, of course he's going to go back" is just. Nah.

Daenerys has a history of violence but that's irrelevant. She also has a history of red lines. She has never, ever, used violence indiscriminately up until now. It's like if Cersei had suddenly ordered the Mountain to kill Myrcella and saying "aha! Cersei is a violent character who has ordered numerous deaths. This makes sense!"

Daenerys' red lines are:
1) If you are an innocent
2) If you bend the knee and submit

Time and time again you see her trying to get peace with her enemies through diplomacy (Yunkai, Meereen, the Tarlys, Cersei, even Jon Snow) and agreeing not to do trout if they surrender. And when they do bend the knee, she hasn't done a god damn thing. It's when they don't that she brings out Fire and Blood. Even then, she insists children be spared (see Astapor and "Harm no child") and the death of Zalla haunts her and causes her to chain up the dragons.

King's Landing surrendered, it was full of innocents and yet she crossed those two red lines anyway. Which I'm fine with, people change, their values change, their beliefs change and that makes an interesting character. But I don't find her sudden abandonment of her previous moral code out of nowhere to be believable.

And yes, really, it's out of nowhere.

Has Daenerys inflicting violence upon her enemies been shown? Yes of course.
Has her abandonment of that code, of killing those who surrender and killing innocents even been teased? No.

Also in the WW2 analogy, this would be the Empire of Japan surrendering and then the US dropping more atomic bombs on them anyway. Which would be both a war crime and poor character development for President Truman.

"Is it justice to answer one crime with another?" yeah he ended up being a trout but whatever the point still is pretty relevant and this was back in season 4. If she didn't find someone to be innocent, she didn't give a smurf.

If in her mind, these people aren't innocent, then the act was okay and justice for everything the city and the leaders put her and her family through. They "surrendered" but were they supporting her? no. They were just giving up. We, of course, don't know anymore since we saw the people's perspective, not hers.

I liked one comment I read that, had the show chosen to take this direction (and indicate it on screen, not just the Behind the Scenes) would have been really good.

Basically, her seeing how quickly and easily the city fell, and how willing everyone was to surrender once they saw her dragon break through the gates and her army take down the Golden Company. And realizing that, had she actually just marched straight to King's Landing like she wanted, she would've won without nearly and bloodshed. That yes, she's lost everything, but she really didn't have to. And then just saying smurf it all to hell and snapping.

Or, realizing she's won a prize she didn't really want all that much (re: her hating ruling in Meereen) and burning it all next episode when she realize she's spent her whole life on vengeance and retribution for something that feels meaningless once she conquers it. Especially given that the people don't love her.